Rand Paul: I won’t allow you to smear me by claiming that I’m for amnesty

posted at 6:01 pm on June 12, 2014 by Allahpundit

Breitbart dropped the A-bomb on him this morning, headlining a post about Paul’s tete-a-tete with Grover Norquist yesterday on immigration, “Rand Paul: Let’s Compromise On Amnesty.” Naturally Paul started getting hammered for it online, drawing this retort:

I will not let sloppy journalists characterize my position as “amnesty.” It is simply untrue. http://t.co/ToWmioTg0W

His staff, sensing peril in letting that accusation go unchallenged, slapped together an op-ed stating his position and handed it over to Breitbart. (Which, let’s just acknowledge, was a Jedi-caliber bit of content generation by the BB guys.) Is it true or false that Rand’s for amnesty? Here’s what he says:

I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable. I voted against the Gang of Eight’s comprehensive immigration reform bill because it did not secure the border first. I will only support reform that has border security first as verifiable and ascertained by Congress, not the president.

My plan will not give the president the authority to simply declare that the border is secure. It will require yearly votes of Congress to ensure the president doesn’t get around the law…

Immigrants are drawn to the magnet of free market capitalism here in the United States. Our nation should have open arms to immigrants who want to come her and work hard to make a new life in a free nation. As a libertarian-minded senator, I am attracted to the idea of somebody coming to this country with a couple dollars in his pocket, and then through hard work, make the American Dream a reality.

I do not support amnesty, which is why I don’t support our current system with no border security and a blind eye to the problem.

Three things. One: Unless I’m missing something, his position on immigration hasn’t changed. He’s always supported reform of some kind; what he didn’t support was the Gang of Eight bill, ostensibly because he didn’t like the “special” path to citizenship it created but in reality because he knew that Rubio was going to get nuked for it on the right and decided he’d better stay far away. He’s never going to back away from reform entirely, though, and neither will any other 2016 hopeful. They’re too afraid of being buried under the Latino vote in the general election (even though they will be anyway). Realistically, Paul’s position here — no special path to citizenship and no legalization until the border is verifiably secure — is as far right as any Republican candidate will go in the primaries.

Two: How do you define “amnesty”? As letting illegals apply for citizenship? Letting them apply for legalization? When I use the term, I’m thinking of any bill that would permit legalization before the border has been measurably improved. Paul’s worried about the same thing, which is why he says no fewer than three times in this short op-ed that he’d require a vote of Congress affirming those improvements before any legalization could take place. If you’re holding out for something more stringent than that — no legalization under any circumstances, attrition through enforcement for the indefinite future — that’s great but you’re kidding yourself. Remember, even Ted Cruz, while opposing a path to citizenship, supported the legalization component in the Gang of Eight bill. Congressional Republicans will never again take a “no legalization, period” position after Obama’s landslide among Latinos in 2012. It is what it is. Rand’s plan is as conservative a bill as any prospective nominee will feel safe in supporting.

Three: Rand’s plan doesn’t have the tiniest chance of becoming law and he knows it. He’s putting this out there not as a serious proposal but to pander to conservatives who are skeptical of him. Apart from a few dozen righties in the House, there’s no constituency in Congress that wants to suspend legalization for illegals until the border is secure. Democrats don’t want to because they want the border open for future Democratic voters; Republicans don’t want to because they want the border open for cheap labor for the donor class and the Chamber of Commerce. The only reason border security is part of comprehensive reform in the first place is because it gives Republicans a way to sell the bill to the right. And even if Rand’s bill somehow ended up passing, the GOP would end up caving and gutting it within a few years. Imagine if they passed his plan and Congress was asked to vote in 2016 on whether new improvements to security have made the border sufficiently strong that we can now begin legalizing illegals who are here. How would that vote go in a presidential election year, with the GOP quavering at what might happen among Latino voters if they vote no?

I’m not knocking Paul for this, to be clear. His proposal, while laughably DOA, is a smart way to try to appease conservatives, libertarians, and Latinos simultaneously, emphasizing security while seeming to stand up to the right in insisting on reform that involves legalization. Is it too much to ask, though, that Republicans like him emphasize now and then that the only reason America’s stuck at this endless impasse on comprehensive reform is because Democrats won’t accept border security on its own terms? A Republican Congress, squishy as it would be, would pass a security-only bill overwhelmingly knowing how their base would react if they didn’t. It’s Democrats who can’t stand the idea of improving the border for its own sake, but rather as a regrettable concession to be made in an amnesty deal. Might want to mention that from time to time, senator, to remind voters who the “unreasonable” party in Congress really is.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

McCain, Rubio, Graham and others also deny they were ever for illegal alien amnesty!!

Anyway, NM Gov Martinez gives away part of the game that pro-amnesty Republicans, like Rand Paul, are playing. They are avoiding the word “amnesty” (in favor of vague, positive sounding terms like “reform”) and are even denying that they are for amnesty.

After chatting with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer a few minutes before, she [Martinez] said that Arizona’s restrictive immigration law is not the type she would implement in her state.

“And it can be tackled without using the word amnesty,” she said. “People can be in this country legally and contributing, and they can come here to do all kinds of jobs, not just jobs Americans don’t want, all kinds of jobs, get educated, the whole nine yards, but be here legally. And there’s a variety of ways of receiving that kind of status.”

1. Border security – without it, no plan will work
2. Guest worker status for all aliens now here who register, with no path to citizenship, ever
3. Repeal of Jus Soli to stop the anchor babies, with exception to those here legally
4. Health checks for all immigrants, at their expense
5. Jail time for those found here illegally without registration, followed by forced deportation, and penalties on their source country to pay for it

My suggestions would work and would stem the tide.

And they’ll never go for it because the democrats want the new voters and the GOP is too stupid to do anything at all.

Let’s say they pass a bill giving illegals legal status in 3 years IF congress certifies that progress has been made on border security.

In 3 years, no matter what has happened with border security, the illegals will get legal status. Congress will vote to say progress is made no matter what.

It is a sham. Tying anything to legal status is a sham and a con.

I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable.

this is an enormous dishonest straw-man.

Immigration reform – whereby we reform our immigration laws, has nothing to do with the status of illegals. We can reform our immigration laws today. Right now.

It is tying the two things together that is the con.

If immigration reform is so important, as the left and GOP have been saying for 20 years, why do they not do it? Because both the left and the GOP refuse to reform immigration laws without passing an amnesty.

Which is the only proof anyone needs that “immigration reform” is a red herring. Nobody cares about reforming immigration laws. They could have done it at any time in the last 20 years, no problem.

No, what they want it amnesty. that is the only thing they want.

Even if they pass a whole new plethora of immigration laws, none of those laws will be enforced any more than the laws are now. It is all kabuki theater for amnesty.

And, of course, amnesty leads to another 20 million illegals within the next decade, just like the 1986 amnesty did.

Any politician who utters this:

I am for immigration reform because what we have now is untenable.

Is dishonest and only wants amnesty.

Rand Paul is for amnesty. Claiming otherwise is a lie. Just like McCain. Just like Rubio.

1. Border security – without it, no plan will work
2. Guest worker status for all aliens now here who register, with no path to citizenship, ever
3. Repeal of Jus Soli to stop the anchor babies, with exception to those here legally
4. Health checks for all immigrants, at their expense
5. Jail time for those found here illegally without registration, followed by forced deportation, and penalties on their source country to pay for it

Wino on June 12, 2014 at 10:30 PM

Put down the bottle, wino, and back away. If you put all of that into one “comprehensive” bill the feds will only implement number 2 and will gut it with exceptions while swearing that the others are completed or in progress.

A Republican Congress, squishy as it would be, would pass a security-only bill overwhelmingly knowing how their base would react if they didn’t.

This is a lie.

The base demanded border security betwee4n 2000 and 2006 and it did not happen. They (the GOP) still tried to tie it to amnesty.

Why do GOP apologists lie to us as if we don’t know history? Is it because you GOP apologists don’t know history?

Silly.

Again, the proof is in the pudding. That neither party will deal with border security or reform of our immigration laws without an amnesty is proof that the only thing that matters to either party is amnesty.

Put down the bottle, wino, and back away. If you put all of that into one “comprehensive” bill the feds will only implement number 2 and will gut it with exceptions while swearing that the others are completed or in progress.

Nomas on June 13, 2014 at 8:10 AM

And, within 5 years the “no citizenship ever” will turn into citizenship for the illegals.

What the left/GOP (but I repeat myself) ignore is that we refuse to accept amnesty tied to border security because we know that border security is a ruse that will never actually happen. They want to sell us on some plan where we “trade” amnesty for enforcement, but they and we both know it is illusory, that no enforcement will happen. Once the amnesty happens, everything else will be ignored.

Which is why they refuse to pass any new enforcement measures without tying it to amnesty. They know if they pass some kind of enforcement measures and wait a few years, we’ll notice that they never actually implement or do the enforcement measures.

Which is why it all has to happen at once. So us rubes will be tricked.

At any time in the past 20 years, we could have passed and implemented new border enforcement measures.

then, after waiting a few years for the measures to have effect (or is “affect” – can never get those two straight), they could have approached legal status for illegals (after the flow of illegals is reduced and the number still in country is reduced).

That would have been the reasonable, adult thing to do.

They did not do that thought (not even the GOP between 2000 – 2006) because they know they have no intention of actually implementing enforcement measures.

And, based on this history, we know it too. Which is why we are not falling for their tricks despite their constant lies.

Any reasonable person would have said “let’s work on reducing the flow of illegals into the country and work on reducing the number of illegals here” and then, 5 years or so later, approach giving some of the remaining illegals a legal status.

That will never happen. Again, that is all the proof you need that nobody is serious about enforcement.

Paul doesn’t mind if you label his critics that way if they say the words immigration reform.

I think he is right, they are not allowed to say the words.

We are very afraid of liberals hijacking any legislation that might take care of any problems related to border security, e verify, and now these children in refugee camps who have sneeked into the country.

We are very afraid of liberals hijacking any legislation that might take care of any problems related to border security, e verify, and now these children in refugee camps who have sneeked into the country.

Fleuries on June 13, 2014 at 8:22 AM

the problem is, I’m afraid of the GOP doing it. I trust the GOP on this issue as little as I do the DNC.

The GOP could have done border security 2000-2006. And considering that 9/11 was fresh in everyone’s minds, it would have been popular and non-controversial. But they didn’t (oh, they passed some meaningless nonsense that was not really implemented – but that just proves my point).

This proves the GOP doesn’t want border security any more than the left does. They want amnesty.

We’ve been promised by the DC crowd, never mind who’s in the majority, every time this subject comes up that border security will be the top priority and come first. BS! Reagan got fooled by this ploy, too. Bush, Sr., got caught up in foreign policy and forgot about it. BJ wanted more of the same. 9-11 happened and that was the end of that. The pendulum has now swung to doing nothing and preventing states from doing something. How many kids are going to die from the Won’s fiasco, we’ll never know for sure.

When one even slightly considers the enormous risk our forefathers took for liberty and justice, it becomes nauseating to listen to these supposedly conservative politicians shout, cry, and whine about the risk involved with doing the right thing, simply because because they fear losing votes–Hispanics, gays, pro-abortion or otherwise.

A border agent on Kelly’s show last night said when they take a senator or rep down to the border to show them how secure it is, they fly them over on choppers and they see empty patrol cars parked at the border. This is fraud, plain and simple. This is how the Won can stand up in front of an audience and make the claim that the border is more secure now than ever. We’re being conned every which way it can be done by this regime, even counting as a deportation those who are turned back at the border. They will never tell us the truth if a lie serves their purposes better.

1. Border security – without it, no plan will work
2. Guest worker status for all aliens now here who register, with no path to citizenship, ever
3. Repeal of Jus Soli to stop the anchor babies, with exception to those here legally
4. Health checks for all immigrants, at their expense
5. Jail time for those found here illegally without registration, followed by forced deportation, and penalties on their source country to pay for it

Wino on June 12, 2014 at 10:30 PM

Psst, maybe you forgot about this president’s addiction to waivers?
I really shudder to anticipate what pardons he’ll give when he leaves office.

Lets define amnesty.
Currently illegal aliens should be deported. That is the current legal position of the United States of America.
Anything that lessons this burden on the illegal alien is in fact an amnesty.

There you have it. Anything that declares that an illegal alien will not be deported is AMNESTY.

The position of any conservative should be the following. In particular libertarians, because without a virtuous people, nothing in the libertarian play book functions.

Secure the borders. We are a nation, and nations have boundaries.

Work place enforcement of current laws. The government is in place for the citizens, their job is to protect the rights of the citizens. If someone is taking jobs from citizens who is not authorized to work in this country, it is the duty of the government to remove those unauthorized workers from the work force.

Enforcement of welfare laws. Again, the government is in place for the citizens. Their job is to protect the rights of the citizens. If someone is illegally taking tax payer funds it is the duty of the government to stop that theft, punish the wrong doers, and protect the wealth of the citizens. I would say that any government employee that helps or gives tax payer funds to illegal aliens should be terminated, and if the theft is egregious enough, imprisoned.

I would also argue that work-a-day congregating areas should be swept regularly to push out the illegal aliens allowing American citizens to get these jobs if they want them.

Do that for ten years. Then tell me if we still have a problem.

By the way, every last one of these things is already the law of the land. The only reform required is actually implementing it and doing the duty that the government is there to do.

And every time you repeat this La Raza approved, focus group and poll tested lie, you prove to everyone listening that you ARE for amnesty. And they are right to come to that conclusion because you DO support amnesty.

Rands position has always been a libertarian one — he believes in the market and supply and demand, including how it relates to labor.
That being said, as Milton Friedman liked to point out, you can’t have a welfare state and open borders at the same time.
So rands trying to reconcile those positions. Yes, if someone comes here from Mexico for a better life and is willing to work, we shouldn’t discourage that. No, we should not allow a bunch of people to come in mind live off our welfare system.

Explain to me the point of the government?
Can someone from Russia simply come here and start voting in their own government representatives?
How about China? Can they send over two hundred million drones to replace our population?
What is the purpose of government?

Congressional Republicans will never again take a “no legalization, period” position after Obama’s landslide among Latinos in 2012.

And by God, you’re going to make sure they don’t by constantly enabling this silly and deliberate false lie while at the same time claiming (wink wink) that you really don’t want amnesty, but gosh darn it, we just have to do it based on a false narrative.

The cardinal political rule of illegal immigration is, if politicians and their cronies benefited from secure borders and rigorously, properly enforced borders we would not have a massive, nation-changing illegal alien problem and America would be a far better place to live for its citizens and legal immigrants.

For decades our borders have been porous and our enforcement of internal immigration security laws have been impotent – because politicians of both parties want it that way…

Someone explain to me, in light of the reality that respect for the rule of law by our lawmakers and the Executive is effectively gone, what they can possibly write in thousands of unread pages that will force them to change their behavior?

Amnesty, shamnesty. What Paul and many before him advocate is, in fact, not amnesty. Amnesty is no jail time, no fine.

BUT IT IS MUCH WORSE! It is a REWARD of the ill-gotten gains to the criminal who stole them!

Would Paul reward the burglar with the stolen jewels?

Residency, or at least presence, in our country is the ill-gotten gains (not to mention driving privileges in many states, in-state tuition in several states, no workplace enforcement of I-9 form across the nation, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.)

Here’s a challenge to those misguided fools masquerading as politicians: name another human activity, other than immigration, where you would reward the criminal with his ill-gotten gains.

If only the GOP would:

1. Honor the promise in its 2012 platform — “no amnesty”.

2. Proudly and loudly stand up for its own constituents, American citizens, and NOT foreign nationals.

We now get a hint of what a libertarian utopia would look like with a completely open border and no interior enforcement. Everyone in the world has the natural right to come to the USA and make other people pay for their food, housing and healthcare.

Yes, if someone comes here from Mexico for a better life and is willing to work, we shouldn’t discourage that.

Timin203 on June 13, 2014 at 9:30 AM

As long as they LEGALLY IMMIGRATE. Anyone who enters the U.S. ILLEGALLY must be arrested and deported. Rand Paul can claim otherwise, but, his plan grants AMNESTY to illegals, because it does not provide for deportations – this is unacceptable.

Someone explain to me, in light of the reality that respect for the rule of law by our lawmakers and the Executive is effectively gone, what they can possibly write in thousands of unread pages that will force them to change their behavior?

DrDeano on June 13, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Direction to the courts that any and all citizens automatically have standing in cases in which the government is not following the laws.

That there would fix some of it.

After that, I would be pushing hard for a path allowing states to fire Justices that are not following the constitution. This would require a constitutional amendment.

The cardinal political rule of illegal immigration is, if politicians and their cronies benefited from secure borders and rigorously, properly enforced internal immigration laws we would not have a massive, nation-changing illegal alien problem and America would be a far better place to live for its citizens and legal immigrants.

How do you define “amnesty”? As letting illegals apply for citizenship? Letting them apply for legalization? When I use the term, I’m thinking of any bill that would permit legalization before the border has been measurably improved.

Sorry but is still amnesty when you reward anyone who broke the law coming into our country. Amnesty for me is rewarding anyone who is in our country illegally right now and didn’t go through the proper immigration system we have.

Amnesty, shamnesty. What Paul and many before him advocate is, in fact, not amnesty. Amnesty is no jail time, no fine.

BUT IT IS MUCH WORSE! It is a REWARD of the ill-gotten gains to the criminal who stole them!

Would Paul reward the burglar with the stolen jewels?

Residency, or at least presence, in our country is the ill-gotten gains (not to mention driving privileges in many states, in-state tuition in several states, no workplace enforcement of I-9 form across the nation, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.)

Here’s a challenge to those misguided fools masquerading as politicians: name another human activity, other than immigration, where you would reward the criminal with his ill-gotten gains.

If only the GOP would:

1. Honor the promise in its 2012 platform — “no amnesty”.

2. Proudly and loudly stand up for its own constituents, American citizens, and NOT foreign nationals.

His staff, sensing peril in letting that accusation go unchallenged, slapped together an op-ed stating his position and handed it over to Breitbart. (Which, let’s just acknowledge, was a Jedi-caliber bit of content generation by the BB guys.)

I think it was much more than content generation

The reason being that Rand Paul is duplicating the morph performed by tea party express Sal Russo, with the same player (Norquist) in the same venues earlier this year

Russo will hold a conference call with Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, and American Conservative Union chairman Al Cardenas later Wednesday to push for an immigration fix. The call is hosted by the Michael Bloomberg-backed Partnership for a New American Economy.

Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) voted against the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform bill last year, but on Wednesday he plans to “discuss the need for immigration reform.”

Mr. Paul will join former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Partnership for a New American Economy’s monthly series on immigration reform hosted by Grover Norquist.

Mr. Paul, who is openly considering mounting a 2016 presidential campaign, opposed the Senate bill and the prospect of “amnesty.” Mr. Bloomberg is, of course, one of the leading proponents of immigration reform, which the Partnership for a New American Economy aims to promote.

Paul envisions that compromise as some sort of legal status — “status and a place for people here so that they can come out of the shadows, let them begin paying taxes, let them not be locked up and having them run from the authorities,” he said. But he said that status would not include the voting rights “that everybody wants.”

He said voting rights could come “someday,” but at this point in the debate the only reform he thinks could pass is a more stripped-down bill.

NO, Breitbart was not fishing for numbers, Breitbart was reporting red hot news. Got to give the site credit. They are becoming news leaders

Enforce the existing immigration laws. That will solve the problems. Why pass new ones that will be ignored?

JannyMae on June 12, 2014 at 6:12 PM

My sentiments exactly.
I am sick and tired of everyone saying we need a new law to fix this and that problem. Even Levin’s idea regarding the Constitution.
No new laws need passed. What needs to happen all over America is bad laws being expunged and states taking their powers back by nullification.
And we do not need a Constitutional Convention, either. The original rules are static. People keep trying to make them dynamic and it is simply not the case.
Strip the crap & go back to the original rules. You enforce those rules and we are back to Original Intent in the Founding.

I get that many GOP big-donors want amnesty. I understand that. But, they’ll live w/o amnesty.

That the GOP believes that agreeing to an amnesty will in any way change any Hispanic votes is truly disturbing. It shows such a lack of understanding of the real world and history, as to be truly frightening.

If an amnesty passes – the GOP is not going to get any benefit from it. At best, they’ll share “credit” for it with Dems – who Hispanics have always voted for.

The idea that these Hispanics will suddenly change their voting behavior based on this is ludicrous.

On the flip side, if the GOP does not pass amnesty – what happens? The GOP still gets the same percentage of the Hispanic vote it always does.

There is no benefit electorally to amnesty. None.

Instead, the GOP is likely to lose votes from its base by passing amnesty while gaining no votes anywhere else.

It is mind-bogglingly stupid. How can the brain-trust at the GOP not see that?

The GOP believes that if certain issues just go away, the GOP will suddenly gain in popularity with this group or that group (and the media). it isn’t going to happen.

For instance, the GOP believes that if the gay marriage issue will just go away (by the Court embracing gay marriage), then the GOP will gain gay voters. No. It isn’t going to happen. these victim-identity groups always find another cause. Always want to push the envelope further.

Same thing with Amnesty. Pass amnesty and give illegals legal status, and the next issue will be giving them citizenship. And then there will be something else.

And the media always jumps on the next issue to portray the GOP as being “anti” this or “anti” that.

This is why the GOP ultimately always lets the left win on whatever issue de jour comes up in the culture war – b/c the GOP thinks “if this just goes away, we’ll start appealing to” minorities, or women, or young voters.

that is never going to happen that way. the left and various victim-identity groups will always come up with a new cause. Look, for example, how far down we are pushing the idea of “discrimination” to keep black vs. white issues alive.

Look at how far down the bunny hole “feminists” have gone to keep themselves relevant, with almost everything that happens on a college campus now labeled rape (or “micro-aggression”).

If you’re holding out for something more stringent than that — no legalization under any circumstances, attrition through enforcement for the indefinite future — that’s great but you’re kidding yourself.

In the immortal words of Eric Cartman, “Screw you hippie!”

But seriously…

As Andrew Brietbart often noted, politics is downstream from culture. Continue to import third world cultures, eschew mandatory assimilation, and see what happens to national politics. Conservative votes on any other issue will be marginalized to the point of irrelevance.

If you think there are voters who won’t punish the GOP for this – and I mean with-holding our vote regardless of how “not the Democrat” they are on anything else – you’re kidding yourself.

This needs to be a tangible binary choice for Republicans. Pro-Amnesty = lose elections OR Pro-LEGAL IMMIGRATION ONLY = win elections.

Any politician who mentions reform, as opposed to demanding current laws be enforced, is capitulating to amnesty. Paul has apparently crossed over to the dark side. There’s no other angle to look at this.

I get that many GOP big-donors want amnesty. I understand that. But, they’ll live w/o amnesty.
Monkeytoe on June 13, 2014 at 11:29 AM

You are correct RINOs gain few new votes, and big business loses good will, so the question is why?

IMHO they are desperate for amnesty to bust the coming sovereignty backlash in this country. The tea party is simply a reactionary movement against the work in progress to replace sovereign citizen governing with oligarchy

The sovereignty movement has a leg up in the EU, mainly because the parlimentary system makes it easier to have third parties. UKIP victories will only increase the RINO push for amnesty

It is about power. Power is being consolidated at the top. They have to stop the rebellion before it gets its organized.

WIthout dissent, they can rebuild empire, third world style

Hitler had this arrangement, Business and unelected oligarchs. He did a lot of housecleaning of dissidents before it congealed. Hitler also had a compliant press willing to overlook illegalities in the name of advancing an agenda

Its a shame. The US bloomed over the last two hundred years because we threw out the oligarchs. Power corrupts. They have tasted the possibilies of being at the top of controlled systems. Addicts will kill their mother for a fix

Rand Paul: My plan will not give the president the authority to simply declare that the border is secure. It will require yearly votes of Congress to ensure the president doesn’t get around the law…

Ummm… NO.

So, that means that if the Democrats control Congress then the libs can just vote “yeah, sure, the border’s secure”… or the Republicans control a slim majority, and a small handful of squishes vote with the Dems, and yet again say, “yeah, sure, the border’s secure”.

Again… ummm… NO!!!

This has to be verified by BOTH the Federal Border Patrol and the States themselves at the border.

The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members.

In addition to the numerical limits placed upon the various immigration preferences, the INA also places a limit on how many immigrants can come to the United States from any one country. Currently, no group of permanent immigrants (family-based and employment-based) from a single country can exceed 7% of the total amount of people immigrating to the United States in a single year. This is not a quota that is set aside to ensure that certain nationalities make up 7% of immigrants, but rather a limit that is set to prevent any immigrant group from dominating immigration patterns to the United States.

So, given that policy, for each and every illegal who becomes legal there is an equal reduction in the number of immigrants annually from any given associated country. And given that 7% of 675,00 is 47,250, that means that there is an annual limit of 47,250 legal immigrants from any specific country.

So, to continue, if there are 1 million illegals from Country A who are then allowed to become legal, that means that no citizen from Country A can immigrate to the U.S. for the next 21 years.

This makes the U.S. as well as Country A have to choose between either (1) allowing the current illegals in the U.S. to jump ahead of the line to become a U.S. citizen, or (2) taking those illegals back to their host country of origin and making them wait in the back of the line before coming back over the border legally and immigrating legally just like everyone else.

There are 115 million Mexicans and over 400 million people in Central America. The majority are poor, uneducated and unskilled. Central American countries are telling their poor to head to the United States. Mexico has a major problem with illegals unless they are just passing through to enter the United States.

The number of OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) has increased significantly in recent months.

Family reunification can triple the number of uneducated, unskilled aliens. At what point do we totally lose control of our country or have we already done so?

bw222 on June 12, 2014 at 7:28 PM

I feel for the poor and especially for those children streaming across the border, but this country has to put it’s own children first. If you support letting this country become overrun with illegals, I will vote against you. Party not relevant.

I’m fairly annoyed with the knee-jerk hurling of the word “amnesty” as though it’s a Molotov cocktail. All it points out is the hurler’s lack of understanding of the word.

It’s the kind of shallow thinking and demagoguery I expect from liberals.

FishingwFredo on June 13, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Define what you mean as “amnesty”.

Most people’s definition is giving illegals any form of legal residency/work status.

Explain how Paul’s stance is not in favor of amnesty.

There are a ton of comments on this thread pointing out why Rand’s stance is disingenuous, pointing out the history of “immigration reform” that included amnesty, pointing out the bait-and-switch they are currently trying to sell us and explaining why Rand’s stance is, in fact, amnesty.

Instead of simply making the statement you made – perhaps you could explain to us what you mean by amnesty and why we are wrong.

We’ve had this debate round-and-round for 10+ years, and not once has a pro-amnesty person (or if you prefer – pro “comprehensive immigration reform”) been able to make a convincing argument (or really, any argument). So, I’d be happy to see any argument you have as to why granting illegals some form of legal status is NOT amnesty and why doing so is in the nation’s interest.

I’m fairly annoyed with the knee-jerk hurling of the word “amnesty” as though it’s a Molotov cocktail. All it points out is the hurler’s lack of understanding of the word.

It’s the kind of shallow thinking and demagoguery I expect from liberals.

FishingwFredo on June 13, 2014 at 12:41 PM

As I explain in many comments up-thread, reforming the nation’s immigration laws has nothing to do with whether or not we give current illegals amnesty.

Whether we decide to issue more H2A visas, more lottery visas, or change the forms, or change the eligibility requirements, it has no bearing on whether or not we decide to give legal status to current illegals.

So, claiming we have to give some form of legal status to illegals because the current regime “is broken” is simply dishonest.

Moreover, the current regime is only broken in the sense that the laws are ignored by our gov’t and not enforced. How adding new laws, or changing the laws already on the books is going to fix that problem is left completely unsaid.

this is a problem entirely created by the gov’t refusal to follow the current law. So, claiming “the current regime is broken” is, again, dishonest.

Finally, regardless of what we do with our immigration laws, giving legal status to millions of low-skilled, low-educated people is a terrible idea for a lot of reasons. the biggest of which is that it creates an enormous incentive for millions more people to enter the country illegally.

So, the proposed “solution” to the entirely purposefully created problem does not actually solve anything. it merely grants legal status to the current crop of illegals while creating the incentive for another crop to replace them.

Add to all of this the fact that the gov’t is unlikely to enforce any new immigration laws with any more gusto than they do the current immigration laws, and what is the point?

Libertarians are for open borders, and against a welfare state. Have they realized that the open borders part will eventually destroy the welfare part? It’s hard to believe they would pursue that kind of destructive policy. It’s a virtual scorched earth plan.

Rand Paul is not for amnesty. He is for love. He is just showing love for people who make the mistake of entering our country without permission, and will allow them to join the Neocon party. He will then pass legislation to ban the word amnesty. That will show he is not for amnesty

“Nobody wants another Washington “comprehensive reform” fustercluck, not from Rubio, not from Schumer, not from Boehner, and not from Paul”.

virgo on June 13, 2014 at 7:37 AM

Virgo, I totally agree.
Why not just secure the border and stop the inflow of illegals, period. Next, send the children from Central America home. I would rather pay their airfares and the cost of getting them home to their parents, than pay for their entire family to come to America and fill the Medicaid and welfare rolls.
There are many American kids waiting to be adopted or fostered. Charity starts at home, let’s take care of American kids first.
Send a message, that America is only open for legal immigrants, not illegals.

The founding principles of the Libertarian Party include open borders. It is one of the bedrock beliefs that was always part of their platform. Ron Paul ran on it when he had the LP nomination for President in 1988.

Now, Paul very publicly defied the party on abortion and was staunchly pro-life, so we know he would have stood up to them if he disagreed. He did not.

ò¿ó

He only began to oppose open borders and illegal immigration when it became an issue after he returned to Congress, and keeping his true beliefs would have cost him his seat. That is the kind of “man of principle” he is (also pork & earmark king, but that’s another rant).

Rand has never publicly disagreed with Daddy on anything. Do you think his opinions suddenly changed when Ron’s did.

ò¿ó

I repeat: Rand Paul will never be on a national Republican ticket, for very good reasons.

I would note that if the proponents of reform had agreed to implement and enforce the sound measures needed ten years ago, we would already have been able to find a way to deal with the existing illegal population to bring them into the system and paying taxes, etc.

It is the very resistance to enforcement that makes those who favor sensible and meaningful reform suspicious of the “comprehensive” advocates.

ò¿ó

Please remember that enforcement is NOT just border security. That still needs improvements, to be sure, but until we do visa tracking of temporary visas, we can’t solve the problem. Other countries manage to track the holders of their work, tourist, and student visas, we must as well.

And e-Verify works. It could be implemented nationwide in a year’s time. That is critical. (The Gang of 8 bill proposed to do it over ten years which is a joke, it would never happen).

Meanwhile all the damn illegals are being housed at our military bases where I am sure they will receive better medical care than our veterans get from the VA.Sick and shameful!Impeach Obama now!
redware on June 13, 2014 at 7:20 PM

The GOP will never impeach Obama because secretly they agree with all his policies

What we have is untenable only because government has failed to do its job. This is extortion against the American people. Its as if the pols are saying “we won’t do our sworn duty unless and until you all give us a Mulligan on past abuses”. Disgraceful and Rand Paul can suck it.

Early on, I too, was a Rand supporter. My question to him now would be why, Senator, do you think talking out of both sides of your mouth in regard to immigration will be welcomed by your base?
What is it about the lesson of Senator Rubio’s fall from grace within the base that you fail to understand?
As the GOPe turns further and further away from the bedrock conservative principles that gave voters a clear choice in elections, people are refusing to be pandered to, and are simply not going to take it anymore. For the latest example, please contact Rep. Eric Cantor for further details.

We know “our” government has been bought and sold like so many prostitutes by the global multi-national corps. Both parties. But it doesn’t mean the same thing for both parties.

This issue by itself contains the poison pill for the GOP. You can’t BS your base. And we will desert you wholesale. Why? It’s your base and our children who are being betrayed not the democrats. Go ahead jump. You’ll find out gravity isn’t just a theory.